Our View: Hey, SJC — Do your job!

If the Supreme Judicial Court claims Massachusetts law falls short in preventing unwelcome photographs under a woman's skirt in public, we say, "You're just not trying hard enough."

Comment

southcoasttoday.com

Writer

Posted Mar. 7, 2014 at 12:01 AM

Posted Mar. 7, 2014 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

If the Supreme Judicial Court claims Massachusetts law falls short in preventing unwelcome photographs under a woman's skirt in public, we say, "You're just not trying hard enough."

The law the commonwealth applied to an MBTA passenger's use of his cellphone camera to take video and photos up women's skirts against their will requires that prosecutors prove both that female passengers have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that they were photographed nude or partially nude. The SJC said neither point could be proven.

It would be funny, if it weren't a betrayal of every woman and girl who puts on a dress to go out in public instead of going out in her underwear alone. Common sense tells you it's wrong to invade anyone's privacy in that manner, but common sense should have informed the justices that the victims' attire explicitly conveys their expectation of privacy beneath their clothes. And to claim the victims were not "partially nude" because they were fully clothed is completely devoid of common sense — the perpetrator wasn't photographing their clothes, he was photographing what the women had intended to cover. It is obvious ... as should have been the guilty finding.

Never mind that the Legislature is outraged and will work swiftly to bring the law up to date with modern technology: Don't waste a minute. But prosecutors brought the wrong law to court, the justices lack creativity, or both. This case should have ended with a conviction, and the man using his cellphone to acquire images of women's private parts in public against their wishes should have been punished.

The defendant's lawyer — a woman — said the courts "got this one right."